garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
 Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 01:14 |
 
|
I would just like to get confirmation on the formulas for money received and spending (age of players etc)so I can see for example if my unsuccessful Ogre team would be further hindered at the end of a season, and if my Undead team which is somewhat bloated would have to say goodbye to its 112 game zombie superstar and 91 game zombie star etc. If they would, as it seems, that is indeed awful. Maybe they would be ok first season if games before the change were ignored but you wouldn't see their like again.
"No you cannot retain your linos for a long time says the rules guy!"
As others have said also it seems people who don't have high win rates (so obviously over half of people) would suffer with low tv ceilings if the seasons are not long. This would undoubtedly reduce coach numbers as newbies come in and get extra frustrated, and don't stay long. This is very important! Christer will likely think on that. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
mrt1212
Joined: Feb 26, 2013
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 01:26 |
|
1000k+ 10k*Game + 5k*TD + 5k*CAS + Treasury at season end spits out the TV Cap of your team for next season.
Since TD+CAS both are multiplied by 5, I've combined them in the table I created.
It's hard to calculate just how the "wants to retire" surcharge would affect a team because it hinges on a d6 pass at the end of the season and gets marginally more difficult to pass each season if they do, and more expensive by 20k each season once they fail. You'd have to do a few illustrations to get an idea of the possibilities.
There is also some ambiguity in how we can monkey with the rebuy - if I carried 3 RRs last season am I obliged to take 3 again? What if I drop a RR before my last game of the season and then am only obliged to take 2 next season? This might provide more breathing room for some teams but also might not be in the spirit that they designed the system.
My Box Ogres are getting wrecked by bb2016 because 5/6 Ogres have PO. |
|
|
tussock
Joined: May 29, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 03:57 |
|
@growth in 16 games.
Yes, skill growth can be that high, and stay high, if you want it to be. You necessarily have rookies in the team, both at and soon after cutting, that would benefit strongly from a skill or two. You still roll doubles and stats on some of them just like you always did, and end up with a new favourite to pop up to 3 or 4 skills. Targeted MVPs mean pretty regular skilling on everyone in the team who isn't "finished". High skill players do usually have skills that get them more SPPs than a rookie team can manage.
The fastest growth is always very new teams, but if you don't lose skilled players it doesn't slow that much after you get your Apo, bench, and RRs, and doesn't need to slow at all with targeted MVPs.
--
garyt1, I like examples, so ...
https://fumbbl.com/p/team?team_id=648436
Your box undead, I'll take the longest reasonable season of 16 games and look at your last 16.
TD+Cas, last 16 (ST 7 Block Mummy!) 60, average 3.75
So you could pretty safely have 1650k to buy your team (190k treasury, 300k TD+Cas, 160k Games, 1000k base, plus free fan factor). Drop the new Wight or worst two Zombies and you're there, alternately, cut a RR and both AC/CL. Or various other ways, it's not hard. 175 TV including the 10 FF.
Assuming your team is grandfathered into their first season they would be fine. Players would get successively more expensive from there after another 32 and then 48, 64, 80, etc games, but until you get up there it's probably easy enough to work around, and few will actually survive that long of course.
New teams would look a bit different to that, Guard zombies can be fed MVPs very quickly to get them to 3rd skill within another 16 games if you like, and then not give them any more ever if you don't want the 4th skill. Quicker to get right, easier to replace, don't eat MVPs afterward.
And yes, you could retain a 120 game Guard zombie anyway, if you wanted to. It means you get to keep a few less skills elsewhere and come back with a somewhat lower TV and more rookies. Up to you. Keeping a player for 600 games could be what you choose to do, if you are OK with having another rookie with them each season or two.
--
As to this "poor coaches would have a low TV ceiling", I don't know if any of you have seen the teams on low CR coaches after 16+ games, but almost all of them would be getting free replacements for all their journeymen and a better team at the end of it.
The most noticeable difference between high CR and low CR coach teams (for those who don't play stunties) is not TD+Cas, nor the ability to actually hit the 190k lid on safe treasury even when you lose all the time, it's that their teams get destroyed and they lose their skilled players at a much higher rate. You're not just stealing the ball from them, you're also causing casualties on their primary carriers.
Middling coaches, who make a few mistakes yet, or pick harder match ups, but otherwise protect the team, they'll have a slightly lower budget, but they'll also have somewhat less skilled players to have to buy back with it, from the lower number of TDs and Cas they got.
This is obviously the biggest problem with it, farming for TDs and Cas gets you a better team, exactly like it does now. That problem is not fixed by this, picker Ranked elfs will still be better than Box elfs.
--
There's good arguments for having shorter seasons than 16, but then teams would rarely get as big as the current crop of major contenders, and grandfathering the current lot would be more difficult. |
_________________
  |
|
keggiemckill
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 04:09 |
|
I love when people debate the same things repeatedly, like they are going to make a difference on the matter. Isn't that a sign of insanity? |
_________________
The Drunker I get, the more I spill
"Keggie is the guy with the bleach blond hair that gives answers nobody else would think of."
Jeffro |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 04:28 |
|
| tussock wrote: | @growth in 16 games.
Yes, skill growth can be that high, and stay high, if you want it to be. You necessarily have rookies in the team, both at and soon after cutting, that would benefit strongly from a skill or two. You still roll doubles and stats on some of them just like you always did, and end up with a new favourite to pop up to 3 or 4 skills. Targeted MVPs mean pretty regular skilling on everyone in the team who isn't "finished". High skill players do usually have skills that get them more SPPs than a rookie team can manage.
The fastest growth is always very new teams, but if you don't lose skilled players it doesn't slow that much after you get your Apo, bench, and RRs, and doesn't need to slow at all with targeted MVPs. |
You say this, but it's not even true in the current environment. It's not as though attrition just went away either, and who takes the brunt of attrition? Your rookies. I'm really not sure where you think all this spp and skill growth is coming from so easily. Elfs? I mean sure, they can target a bit of spp more easily, but the rest of the rosters are either firing stars or just rebuying their linemen/bench to trim the handful of skills contained there.
How do I know this?
Because I play in a league with a hard salary cap that has to reset every season. Hmm... imagine that, some of us already know what this will do because we already play in very similar leagues. |
|
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 04:30 |
|
Right so with a 6 wins, 4 draws and 6 losses in the last 16 I would be losing some value in the reset even with the helpful assumption of no more than 1 season on the first calculation. The total number of games played is 451 (counting each player separately and adding together). So that is about 28 seasons of total player costs accrued. Basically the team would not be able to look like that if it had started in a seasons environment.
Also it seems I wouldn't be able to grow much without winning a lot more.
Another question. If a player has 175 spp his TV would reflect the 76 spp level. Would you keep the total spp with the rebuy? I presume so. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
garyt1
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 04:40 |
|
My Ogre team is 1640k TV.
In the last 16 they have won 2, lost 14. Caused 44 casualties and scored 19 TDs. Total of 63. So that is near 4 per game. Strangely more than the Undead due to cas matching TDs in the calculation.
I can see the 103 match legend snotling would be a problem. He is overpriced as it is. Also the 71 game (25 spp) snotling would have to go. |
_________________
“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” |
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 04:48 |
|
| licker wrote: | | The growth to 2200, means 600k of skills. Now clearly that is possible in 16 games, but is it actually likely? |
More likely than to have a flying mino in 16 games, since that growth could also come from a big bench or more re-rolls.
There won't be any runaway team, but there will be outliers. These outliers may try to ascend Fumbbl's TV Everest, which begs the question - is around 2200 the Everest we want? Compared to Arktoris' 2800 figure, it is not even camp base.
| licker wrote: | | So really you're capping a larger number of teams at lower TVs than I think you give credit for. |
That a low number of games per season would likely cap most teams TV was recognized as early as page 3, so I'm not sure why I should repeat it every time I say something.
My point hints at this question: we have some numbers on how a team can go from 1000 to 1600 or up in X games, but we (or perhaps just I) don't know much about where a team goes from there. It's as if we presumed that because a team won't be able to go more than N in one season, it won't be able to reach it in two or three.
This question may validate Uedder's concern regarding possible exploits by teams who could enter Majors without entering downtime. This is where mrt's remarks about the non-linearity of skills matter. This is where team build matters too. What if we spread skills instead of stacking them? If MB is the new CPOMB, PC's impression that we may be entering the Beard era does make sense. DP spam could also be good to cheap lino teams. Generating synthetic data looks kinda hard for any of this, but mrt and Tussock did so impressive work so far that it may only my incredulity at work.
Finally, let it be noted that Death Zone 1 presents its league details as an example. Let's not be carried away by the league structure exemplified in it: it has very little to do with open pools. I agree with ArrestedDevelopment after all: we mostly witness pickup games in B and R. The rulebook calls them "friendlies." No idea why they call it that. In any case, as long as we can accept the concept of a league of friendlies, both divisions are covered. If should not be hard to accept it, since the first line we can read on Fummbl's blurb is that it is a league... ;-) |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 05:36 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | The growth to 2200, means 600k of skills. Now clearly that is possible in 16 games, but is it actually likely? |
More likely than to have a flying mino in 16 games, since that growth could also come from a big bench or more re-rolls. |
Then it's false growth and doesn't help a team win games, which seemingly matters (need to score dem TDs). I think you'd be hard pressed to find 30 earned skills on most teams anyway. My 1760 skaven for example have 27 skills across 12 players. I didn't do that in 16 games, and I have zero skills on the linerates, because AV7 line fodder is always going to be a thing.
| thoralf wrote: | | There won't be any runaway team, but there will be outliers. These outliers may try to ascend Fumbbl's TV Everest, which begs the question - is around 2200 the Everest we want? Compared to Arktoris' 2800 figure, it is not even camp base. |
No kidding their won't be runaways in a system designed to not even allow them to exist. As to outliers, that's the point I made. But the outliers will be majority more successful coaches season after season, and the less successful coaches will be the outliers on the other side. That's actually a balance issue I think merits some consideration. This is no longer about simply forcing a median TV every reset, it's also about disadvantaging certain coaches every reset.
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | So really you're capping a larger number of teams at lower TVs than I think you give credit for. |
That a low number of games per season would likely cap most teams TV was recognized as early as page 3, so I'm not sure why I should repeat it every time I say something. |
Funny thing... I wasn't even replying to anything you said. I mean do you even understand the point being made here, because I really don't think you do.
| thoralf wrote: | | My point hints at this question: we have some numbers on how a team can go from 1000 to 1600 or up in X games, but we (or perhaps just I) don't know much about where a team goes from there. It's as if we presumed that because a team won't be able to go more than N in one season, it won't be able to reach it in two or three. |
What difference does more seasons make when the reset is to some nominal TV anyway? Going from 1k to Xk in 16 games is completely different that going to Xk+600k afterall. 1k teams need to buy rerolls, apos, bench, ... they almost trivially jump to 1300k in a few games (unless they are intentionally staying down) just by adding fan factor and fleshing out the rerolls and bench.
Your reset team doesn't have that luxury, or if they do sacrifice rerolls and such they are at a disadvantage in the first X games trying to rebuy them. NWFL is proof of this.
| thoralf wrote: | Finally, let it be noted that Death Zone 1 presents its league details as an example. Let's not be carried away by the league structure exemplified in it: it has very little to do with open pools. I agree with ArrestedDevelopment after all: we mostly witness pickup games in B and R. The rulebook calls them "friendlies." No idea why they call it that. In any case, as long as we can accept the concept of a league of friendlies, both divisions are covered. If should not be hard to accept it, since the first line we can read on Fummbl's blurb is that it is a league...  |
So then...
Why are we bothering? |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 05:46 |
|
| licker wrote: | | Funny thing... I wasn't even replying to anything you said. |
Of course you don't, since you just quote stuff and go on repeating the same thing over and over again.
Funny indeed. |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git.
Last edited by thoralf on %b %08, %2016 - %05:%Dec; edited 2 times in total |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 05:49 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Funny thing... I wasn't even replying to anything you said. |
Of course you don't, since you just quote stuff and go on repeating the same thing over and over again.
Funny indeed. |
Eh...
Don't be lazy.
If you think I'm just repeating myself (which I'm not) then don't bother replying. |
|
|
thoralf
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 05:52 |
|
| licker wrote: | | then don't bother replying. |
What makes you think I was even replying to anything you said?
| licker wrote: | | Why are we bothering? |
Because the New Official Rules are said to apply to Leagues.
Because the Big C said implementing seasons may be a good idea.
Because it's the topic of this thread.
Want fries with that? |
_________________
There is always Sneaky Git. |
|
licker
Joined: Jul 10, 2009
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 07:01 |
|
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | then don't bother replying. |
What makes you think I was even replying to anything you said? |
Because you QUOTED me?
I didn't QUOTE you though did I?
| thoralf wrote: | | licker wrote: | | Why are we bothering? |
Because the New Official Rules are said to apply to Leagues.
Because the Big C said implementing seasons may be a good idea.
Because it's the topic of this thread.
Want fries with that? |
Then why did you prattle on with your nonsense about 'friendlies'?
Do you even make sense to yourself? |
|
|
JimmyFantastic
Joined: Feb 06, 2007
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 09:55 |
|
| koadah wrote: | | garyt1 wrote: | | Matthueycamo wrote: | | End of petty cash up to equal TV I mean that a larger team can put treasury into petty cash and the lesser team does not get this as free cash. If I understand the process right. |
Lower TV teams still get free inducements right to account for pre-match TV differences right?
So a TV1000 team would get 100K of inducments available when taking on TV1100?
Just that more can be spent on top of that by either team with money without giving away more free money to the opponent. |
That sounds ridiculous. Am I missing something? |
Not missing anything. New inducement system is awful. |
_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby! |
|
Balle2000
Joined: Sep 25, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 08, 2016 - 11:20 |
|
| JimmyFantastic wrote: | | koadah wrote: | | That sounds ridiculous. Am I missing something? |
Not missing anything. New inducement system is awful. |
Seemingly* awful.
With the treasury now having a very tangible effect on your TV for the following season, GW seems to have thought that if you really want to use out of "next year's budget", you will get this as a direct bonus to your team. Short term gain, over long term planning.
As an example, 2 bloodweiser kegs could potentially cost you 5 skills for the entire next season.
I'm puzzled by the change as well, but it's done, so I'm eager to see how this works in action. |
|
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season CI
Search
